Replies

"No, that wasn't, but his attack stating that Gould did not read his book was, and was unnecessary."

Only if you redefine ad hominem. Gould either didn't read the book or lied about it's contents. I say lied; Dawkins said didn't read. You say, stop picking on poor Gould.

"No. That was a strawman."

Only if you redefine strawman. It was exactly what your logic implied.

This is getting very old now. It is apparent that no matter what evidence is laid before you, you will never concede an inch. We have spent the good part of a day arguing over whether Dawkins made an ad hominem, when your bringing up the alleged ad hominem had no point to begin with. What if he did (he didn't, but let's say he did for the sake of argument) ? So what? What does that prove? A scientist made a slightly snarky comment about a colleague? Have you ever read a bio of Newton? He excelled at the ad hominem, and I mean real ad hominems. That doesn't mean a damn thing about the validity of his science.

I should have taken Ichneumon's advice. This discussion is over.